IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3290 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3290 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3291 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3291 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

JAYSHREEBEN W/O KEJULBHAI RATHOD AND D/O PARSHOTTAMBHAI TANK Versus KEJULBHAI NITINBHAI RATHOD ==========================================================

Appearance:

HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 18/11/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

The captioned appeals have been filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad, in Family Suit No.861 of 2011. Discernibly, the Family Suit No.861 of 2011 was preferred by the respondent-husband under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”), seeking divorce, while Family Suit No.1282 of 2011, was preferred by the appellant-wife under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1955, praying for restitution of the conjugal rights. Both the suits were tried together and vide impugned judgment, the Family Suit No.861 of 2011 was allowed, while Family Suit No.1282 of 2011 was dismissed. The impugned judgment, is assailed by the appellant-wife raising various grounds.

2. Ms. Shivangi M. Rana, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant got married to the respondent in the year-2006 and were blessed with one daughter named Rajvi. Differences arose between the parties, which culminated into filing of the Family Suit No.861 of 2011 by the husband and the application was preferred by the appellant-wife for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further submitted that vide impugned judgment, the marriage got dissolved and being dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred. It is submitted that the appeal is pending since year-2021; however, since last more than three years, the appellant and the respondent are staying together. It is submitted that since now, the differences between the parties, have resolved. Both, the appellant and the respondent, have entered into a memorandum of settlement. It is accepted and agreed that the parties have mutually resolved their grievances, claims, disputes and proceedings, pending between them before the different authorities. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the appellant, is not willing to continue with the proceedings.

3. Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay, learned advocate for the respondent- husband, on the other hand, fairly conceded that the appellant and the respondent are staying together since last more than three years. It is also submitted that the parties have now willingly entered into a settlement on 06.11.2025, setting out the terms and conditions. It is further submitted that even the parties have agreed not to pursue any legal proceedings pending between them before any court or authority in respect of their matrimonial disputes.

4. Ms. Shivangi M. Rana, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay, learned advocate for the respondent, have jointly submitted that the decree be modified in terms of the settlement.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. Discernibly, the marriage took place between the appellant and the respondent in the month of February-2006 and the parties